Theology is not my forte but it is likely that the reason why women are held by most religions as "second-class human beings" is that they are by nature would be mothers, that is essentially guilty of potentially recreating the world each time they give birth.

Also in the prayer I mentioned there is a line about thanking god for not being born a Gentile.

What would be the reactions in the American media if it were known that a fundamentalist Christian group had a prayer includind the lines

Thank God for not being born a woman andThank God for not being born a Jew?

The members of the Jewish sect in Palestine 2.500 years ago where no more than local Cletus Spuckler who were told by the brightest of them that they were unique in the world and that they were the chosen people among all others.

Of course these suckers believed that racist and supremacist insanity and they still celebrate their supposed uniqueness by chanting at every opportunity how happy they are not to be women (inferior beings) nor Gentiles (inferior race).

How ethical is a religion and its followers when it is based on the rejection of the rest of the world as well as the dogmatic affirmation of superiority over the rest of humanity?

Shortly before he died, Norman Mailer said that he eventually had come to the conclusion that Hitler (sorry for the Godwin point) was the personification of the devil or the embodiment of evil (I can't precisely remember).

Had G.W Bush parents abstained, 100.000 to 200.000 Irakis would still be alive. Notwithstanding 6.000 American soldiers and countless injured, maimed, crippled etc.

Evil isn't just a Biblical figure.

How many of the dozens of thousand who die in car crashes every year in the world die because they've have the unfortunate chance to meet some reckless criminal drivers whose parents are responsible for the death their children have caused. And the same goes for the parents of the victims of course.

Remember the four plights Gautama Buddha meets when he leaves the palace.

Yes, giving life is perpetuating death (such is Nature in the end) but also decease, cruelty, poverty, human madness, sadism... all the attributes of Evil.

If you ever follow some atheist sites you might come across comments about a theist nutcase named Ray Comfort. For your sanity, I don't recommend reading or watching him. It seems he now writes against atheists for a famous wingnut rag called WorldNewsDaily, known by masochist afficiandos as WorldNutDaily.

All this is a rather long introduction in reply to Flocon's and Anijo's exchange on the Jewish prayer. The first atheist Comfort chose to attack was Billy Joel, of all people. In an interview Joel tells why he is an atheist

Finally to the point of my post(you can't stand the suspense), he says, "Then my mother took my sister and me to an Evangelical church, the Church of Jesus Christ. I was baptised there at the age of twelve, and it was strictly hallelujah time. But one day the preacher is up in the pulpit unfolding a dollar bill saying, "This is the flag of the Jews." Whoa, fella! We left that flock."

" Flocon, so you believe in original sin, albeit, stated in a different manner?"

Err.. no Anijo, although the theme is the same, that of evil, but in one case it is a religious view (read transcendental) of evil and in the other case, (mine), an immanent view.

The original sin is a Xtian concept which basically states that every man (humanity) is guilty because of the desobedience to god which caused the Fall of men out of Paradise (transcendence) down to earth (immanence).

Note that when they were in paradise, Adam and Eve had no children of course. A realistic depiction of life since the couple (where do they come from? would ask Ned) never engaged in the doing the dirty game.

Well, as you can imagine, this is not my position and I certainly don't believe in the original sin even in a different manner [d'ailleurs si c'est différent ce n'est pas la même chose ;-)]

Didn't I write that children are innocent whereas to Christians they're not, children are guilty of the original sin...

...I substitute evil to sin and I agree with the idea that evil isn't a transcendental concept but a very down to earth (immanent) reality that exists only because of the existence of men.

Now, you're old enough to know that if it were for men only, there wouldn't be too many people on earth, in the sense that having children isn't the first idea males have in their mind when they engage in bodily fluids exchange with females.

Not that they have much ideas in their mind in these moments though...

Which leads us back to why women are deemed like perpetual culprits in many religions as mothers in the waiting and therefore responsible (as daughters of Eve) of the fall of humanity.

But once again, theology isn't exactly my forte and I may be wrong here.

And Flocon, to say that, "voluntarily perpetuating life is criminal" is akin to adhering to the concept of original sin as not just female humans, but also male humans, have that innate need to perpetuate life, in one way or another.

Ned, I remember how sensitive you are re Deanna Durbin. Behind such and such tune or movie, image or souvenir lies a world of emotions that we wish to communicate (make it alive again) and yet totally inaccessible to others.

Fréhel singing about the inconsistency of men. Nothing transcendental. I had a hard time choosing between this and "Tel Qu'il est" or "C'est un mâle".

As for sin, believers in that have a few problems. When did sin appear? At the meeting of the sperm and the ovule? Then they complicate things with the soul. So which came first, the sin or the soul?

No one has ever found evidence for either, especially at the meeting of the sperm and the ovule. Then they add the idea of freewill. So did that come before, after, or in between the soul and the sin. Of course if we have already sinned, freewill doesn't serve much purpose.

We no longer give these attributes to other animals, so why should be be different. They are just some of fantasies.